Postby Deadboxhero » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:05 pm
What it really sometimes comes down to User use. Everyone has different expectations with some views not being realistic to what the limits acutually are. While durability focus has it's place, the truth of the matter is that thinner cuts better and longer but is limited by who is using it and how.
I feel knives should be as thin as a particular user can handle but that's different things to different people.
One should ask, should the geometry make up for the lack of judicious use and leave huge amounts of cutting performance on the table? Or should the Performance be maximized and alienate those that want to use a knife to not like a knife for chiseling, twisting, prying?
There is no answer to that, different flavors for different tastes.
Personally, I'm more biased towards thin as possible because it's not really something folks can buy or experience and the performance for cutting is insane. After all, isn't a knife made for cutting?
I understand why it's not prominent and widely available, personalIy speaking, It costs more for me to do and takes more time and skill to do.
Also, more headaches if it's in the wrong hands with ridiculous expectations.
It's a lot safer and less cost to go thicker so the knife industry is more geared towards that. That's the world we live in.
What makes Spyderco so unique was Sal's vision to build the knife around a 15 °dps, 30° inclusive edge angle with mimimum necessary thicknesses (stock and behind the edge) to support that edge geometry for a vast audience of users with widely varying expectations.
Brilliant, Performance starts at the edge after all.
I like to take it a step further and remove the "training wheels" with regrinds, however, there are a lot more folks that need thicker geometry. Thinner geometry is a luxury outside of specific use knives.
Personally, the thinner the better and I'm talking about behind the edge thickness, not just stock/spine thickness.
Why?
The Performance from thinner cross section starts behind the edge. Knives are a wedge cross section, so thinner wedge behind that edge is best. So combine thin edge angle with thin behind the edge width and you have a laser. Less wedging.
I honestly feel that cutting performance is basically fixed unless folks can step up to handling thinner knives.
So the combination is
1. Judicious use
2. Thin geometry
3. Good HT, high strength focus to support thin geometry.
3. Steels that have the chemistry for supporting good hardness levels +60rc, higher carbide volume means more skilled users.
If durability is the only focus than
1. Geometry, go thick.
2. HT, go soft.
3. Steel, reduce carbide volume.
So nothing special if raw durability is the focus. I feel just use the knife better and reap the rewards but there is nothing wrong with wanting durability just understand the compromises of both.
's in 14 different steels.
